Well, I guess you're right Omar. This surely is the central dilemma for all concerned with the peak-oil phenomena.
And just to set the record straight: Though I'm not entirely, 110% convinced of the central peak-oil hypotheses, to me it doesn't matter, because the main problem is not whether peak-oil is upon us
as we speak, the problem is that energy scarcity is almost certain to arise in one shape or the other some time during my life-time (I'm 28), and 100% certain to do so within the life-span of my generation's offspring.
You said that experience will be the greatest teacher. I cannot disagree with that, but that does not exclude us from changing our behavioural patterns in a conscious manner - mainly the ways in which we collectively act as if there is no tomorrow and all lunches are free. Now, there are three grand avenues to changing collective behaviour.
One, you define and enforce rules of behaviour in the form of jurisdictions, regulations and social norms for appropriate behaviour through institutional structures such as political, religious or economic bodies.
Two, you change the common-sense attitudes of groups of individuals through legitimate sources of influence that are not tied to institutional or social sanctions, as in point one, by measures such as advertising, campaigning, demonstrations and such.
Three, you change the parameters for what behaviour is physically or psychologically feasible for the actors/users/consumers within the system of interest, such as selling cars that only uses a max amount of N energy units per unit of usage.
This last point I think is the most interesting one. In contrary to the first two strategies it relies only on the most common of all human institutions - namely the marketplace. If producers of goods and services ensure that their production processes are as energy-efficient in the long run as possible (meaning also that they are cheap and one can make a nice profit!); producing goods or services to the public that fulfill their needs at the same time as maximally curbing the energy costs inherent in the consumption of the commodity, then "the consumers" (that's all of us, btw) have little choice but to follow suit and reduce their energy consumption.
For example, the people at the Rocky Mountain Institute (
www.rmi.org) have a lot of good ideas on how to implement energy-efficiency as a standard of excellence and quality both when it comes to the production process and to the final product and its use parameters. The bottom line in political terms is that energy-efficiency need not be relegated to the environmentalists, who for the most part are as squabbling and stupid as the politicians they try to denigrate so often. The bottom line in economical terms is that it makes perfect business sense to make goods and services in the most efficient way possible. Finally, the bottom line in social terms is that the public won't have the feeling that they're being bullied by politicians, big business or "experts" into "doing the right thing for the future/your children/your grandchildren". Instead, "doing the right thing" will be doing the smart thing, because you will be getting a better product for less money.
More on this later!
There are probably threads somewhere on this forum that are more appropriate for this subject. If any has any good suggestions for where to take this I'll just follow your lead.
) I will consider that action as equivalent to a
